Category: Information

William Speirs and Scottish Water: SIC 12 Dec 2013

Works carried out at Templeton Pumping Station – On 22 February 2013, Mr Speirs asked Scottish Water for information relating to works undertaken at Templeton Pumping Station. Scottish Water provided some information to Mr Speirs, notifying him that it did not hold one category of information. Given that Scottish Water located and provided further relevant information during the investigation, the Commissioner found that the authority had not dealt with the request entirely in accordance with the EIRs.

Citations:

[2013] ScotIC 284 – 2013

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.522839

Devon County Council (Decision Notice) FS50430723: ICO 17 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a pedestrian footbridge. Some information was disclosed but the complainant remained dissatisfied and is of the view that not all information held by the public authority has been disclosed in response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon County Council has disclosed all the information it holds which is described in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430723

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.529820

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from the Charity Commission relating to a complaint it had received about the administration of a charitable trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was entitled to rely on section 41 of the FOIA (confidential information) to withhold the disputed information. The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps as a result of this decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50446593

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.529705

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information regarding Estates Professional Service Framework RM3816. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information and provided a weblink. The complainant submitted an internal review. The Cabinet Office refused to provide other information within the scope of the request citing section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 43 as its basis for withholding the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it holds within the scope of the request in full. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50771669

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.635054

Information Commissioner’s Office (Other): ICO 6 Jun 2019

The complainant has requested information associated with the Information Commissioner’s categorisation of applications for a decision under section 50(1) of the FOIA from Mr Alan Dransfield as frivolous or vexatious under section 50(2)(c). The ICO confirmed it does not hold some of the information requested. It has refused to disclose the information it does hold under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers this to be the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold information falling within the scope of part (ii) of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in respect of this part. The information falling within the scope of parts (i) and (iii) to which the ICO has applied section 40(2) is the personal data of a third person and is exempt from release under this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50802258

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.638750

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information regarding projects commissioned under the Consultancy One framework. The Cabinet Office has asserted that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does hold the requested information and has failed to fully consider and responds to the request in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request that does not deny that the information is held (ie the Cabinet Office need to comply with section 1(1)(a) by confirming that the information is held) and then either disclose the information as described in the confidential annex, or issue a refusal notice citing a reason to withhold the information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50742373

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.635053

D v L: CA 31 Jul 2003

L and D lived together. Fearing the breakdown of the relationship, L used a voice activated recorder to record their conversations. D sought an order to restrain their publication after elements appeared in national newspapers. The court also considered the particular status of improperly taken photographs.
Held: Walker LJ said: ‘A court may restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph even if the taker is free to describe the information which the photographer provides or even if the information revealed by the photograph is in the public domain. It is no answer to the claim to restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph that the information portrayed by the photograph is already available in the public domain.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Phillips of Worth Matravers LJ MR, carnwath LJ

Citations:

[2004] EMLR 1, [2003] EWCA Civ 1169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.225462

Regina v Brown (Gregory): HL 9 Feb 1996

The issue was whether ‘data’ within the Data Protection Act 1984 was limited to data in computer-readable form.
Held: The offence of the ‘use’ of protected data required something beyond inspection on a computer screen including printout. There is a tension at inter-state level between the need to protect privacy, and the need for free movement of data between states. Lord Goff held that retrieval of the information would not of itself be ‘using’ the information so retrieved: ‘It would simply be transferring the information into a different form.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Goff

Citations:

Gazette 13-Mar-1996, Independent 13-Feb-1996, Times 09-Feb-1996, [1996] AC 543, [1996] 1 All ER 545

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 5(2)(b) 5(3)(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .
Cited – Regina v Fellows, Arnold CACD 27-Sep-1996
Computer based digital images are ‘copies of a photograph’ sufficient for the Act, and so possession of digital entities capable of being transformed into images were such photographs. Making a file available for download, was sufficient to amount . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Crime

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.86239

Surrey Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 12 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information relating to mobile phone extraction technology. Surrey Police ultimately refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police failed to issue, within 20 working days, a refusal notice specifying the exemptions on which it eventually came to rely. She therefore finds that Surrey Police breached section 17 of the FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42620

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.658019

Caerphilly County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Aug 2012

The complainant requested details relating to a lease agreement and payments made under the terms of the agreement by a named individual in respect of a specific property. Caerphilly County Borough Council withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is engaged with respect to the requested information and that the information was therefore correctly withheld. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0199 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50451414

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.529700

Cleveland Police Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from Cleveland Police Authority about one of its former Chief Executives. This information included records of his corporate credit card spending and the basis upon which he received additional payments in addition to his basic salary. The Authority withheld both types of information on the basis of various exemptions contained within section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act (the law enforcement exemption). The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exemptions cited by the Authority provide a basis to withhold the details of the corporate credit card spending. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions contained at sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) provide a basis to withhold the information regarding the basis for the additional payments and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the details of the payments by the former Chief Executive on his corporate credit card (with the exception of the credit card number itself).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447909

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.529706

Community Integrated Care (Undertakings): ICO 1 Mar 2012

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Community Integrated Care, a national social care charity. This follows the theft of an unencrypted laptop containing personal and sensitive personal data.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-42

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.529270

Imperial College London (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested Imperial College London (the college) to disclose the course materials, tutorials and exams for a particular course taught by a named tutor in Autumn 2011. The college responded to this request refusing to disclose the requested information under section 43 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the college claimed a late reliance on section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered section 14 of the FOIA in this case and he has concluded that it does apply to this request. As he is satisfied that section 14 of the FOIA applies to this request, he requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50511774

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.527365

Portsmouth City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Aug 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint about a specific councillor made to the Standards Assessment Sub-Committee. Portsmouth City Council relied on the exemption at section 41(1) of the FOIA that the information cannot be disclosed as it would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council incorrectly withheld the information under section 41(1) of the FOIA. However, despite the council not citing the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA, the Commissioners decision is that the personal data exemption applies and therefore the requested information should not be disclosed. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50440932

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.529765

Oxford City Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Jan 2021

The complainant has requested information regarding off-street parking enforcement powers for Oxford City Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxford City Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 42(1) to withhold information. She has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council. Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-42403

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.658008

Middlesbrough Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Jun 2019

The complainant requested from Middlesbrough Council information in relation to a pre-planning application meeting between the Council’s planning department and Cambian PLC. The Council stated that it held no information within the scope of the request because such a meeting did not take place. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request in this case. However, by responding to the request outside of the 20 working day timeframe, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50794395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.639178

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 18 Jun 2019

The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose a copy of its assets register. The DfE refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose the requested information to the complainant or issue a fresh response under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
FOI 14: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50775813

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.639144

ABC v Google Inc: QBD 1 Feb 2018

The claimant requested an interim injunction requesting that Google and others remove references to his no spent conviction.
Held: The application named the wrong defendant and otherwise failed technically.

Judges:

Mr Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 137 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.604802

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council relating to outsourcing to solicitors or barristers. The council supplied information relating to three years only and relied upon section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the exclusion relating to the costs limit, for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not obliged to comply with the request because section 12(1) was engaged. The only reasonable advice and assistance the council could have provided would have been to suggest that the request was refined to the three year period for which it disclosed information. In view of this, the Commissioner has concluded that the council satisfied its obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50434771

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.529728

Cumbria Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Sep 2012

The complainant submitted a request to Cumbria Primary Care Trust under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information pertaining to a contract between the Trust and University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and finds that the Trust failed to provide the complainant with the information he requested or to issue a valid refusal notice within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as set out in section 10(1) of FOIA. The Trust was in breach of its procedural obligations under FOIA. However, since the requested information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50441712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.529812

Bristol City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Aug 2012

The complainant requested legal advice from Bristol City Council relating to an application to register land as a town or village green. The council refused to provide the information on the basis that it was either exempt under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the exemption relating to legal professional privilege or the equivalent exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0198 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50442764

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.529695

Department for Work and Pensions (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Sep 2012

The complainant requested information from the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CMEC) relating to the top 10 highest amounts owed by individuals in child maintenance arrears. During the course of the Information Commissioner’s investigation the CMEC ceased to exist and its functions and responsibilities were transferred to the Child Maintenance Group within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Throughout the decision notice reference is therefore also made to the DWP. Any reference to the DWP should therefore also be taken as reference to the CMEC. The DWP refused to provide the information on the basis of section 40(2) and subsequently section 44 was also applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP has incorrectly relied on the exemptions to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information requested. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0217 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50447854

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.529817

Scott and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 22 Apr 2015

SIC Report on adaptations to a bathroom – On 28 April 2014, Mrs Scott asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for a report by a contractor on remedial works to be carried out in her bathroom.
The Council informed Mrs Scott that it did not hold the report, but provided Mrs Scott with some related information to be of assistance. Mrs Scott was dissatisfied that she had not been provided with the information she had requested and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, while the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council did not hold the report requested, she found that the Council failed to provide Mrs Scott with reasonable advice and assistance in responding to her request. She did not require the Council to take any action

Citations:

[2015] ScotIC 057 – 2015

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.546450

Stratford-On-Avon District Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Jan 2021

The complainant requested from Stratford-on-Avon District Council a copy of the terms of reference document relating to a report on possible development of a local airfield. The Commissioner determined the matter with reference to the EIRs. She decided that the regulation 12(5)(e) (Commercial confidentiality) and 12(5)(f) (Interests of the information provider) EIR exceptions were not engaged. The Commissioner requires Stratford-on-Avon District Council to disclose to the complainant the full text of the terms of reference document ‘Brief for Aviation Consultant’. Stratford-on-Avon District Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-41498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.658017

Enayet (Prosecution): ICO 2 Aug 2012

A Lancashire bar owner has been prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for failing to register his premises’ use of CCTV equipment.
Mohammed Ali Enayet, owner of The Lime Lounge in Cleveleys, failed to notify with the ICO despite operating CCTV equipment that was regularly collecting the images of people visiting his restaurant. The bar owner also ignored three letters from the ICO informing him he needed to register and failed to attend an earlier hearing. Mr Enayet was fined pounds 100 and ordered to pay pounds 250 prosecution costs by Blackpool Magistrates yesterday. He will also pay an additional pounds 15 victim surcharge.
Notification is a legal requirement for organisations processing and collecting CCTV images under the Data Protection Act. Most organisations will be required to pay an annual notification fee of pounds 35 and provide details about the types of personal information they process.
Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said:
‘We know that the use of CCTV causes concern to members of the public. It is therefore important that businesses operating CCTV equipment notify with the ICO and are open about the way they are using people’s personal information. Failure to notify is a criminal offence.
‘Despite writing to Mr Enayet on three occasions to remind him that his business was breaching the Data Protection Act, he failed to respond and he is now paying the price for his disregard for the law.’

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.529727

Devon County Council (Decision Notice) FS50430733: ICO 17 Sep 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a pedestrian footbridge. Some information was disclosed but the complainant remained dissatisfied and is of the view that not all information held by the public authority has been disclosed in response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon County Council has disclosed all the information it holds which is described in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50430733

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.529821